No mod tools for Battlefield 3.

"No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frosbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?"

http://www.gamersmint.com/battlefield-3-gameinformer-scans-are-here-info-blowout/

It seems that Battlefield 3 will work well for public servers, not suited for competitive gaming, by the way...that screenshot looks like a mix of MoH and BC2.

They said "maybe later" with bc2 as well. They like to use that.

No commander for sure, and it's likely there won't be any demo recording either since he gave a similarly vague statement when asked.

i love DICE....

Well, they said they "had a way to record" but didn't want to divulge any details. Def a more hopeful response than the one about mod tools.

I personally think they just don't want to share the Frostbite technology yet. Too new.

-Commander mode is in, and demo recording is very likely also.

New BF3 info (scans are in)

-Aiming for CY Q4 2011 release
-Concept for BF3 has been in the works for years, waiting on proper tech to seamlessly come together
-Frosbite 2.0 is the culmination of this tech, entirely re-written
-Lighting sounds neat, one "probe" contains more lighting information than an entire BFBC2 level.
-Level destruction is going to be "believable" but basically everything is destructible.
-Character animations powered by ANT, what EA Sports uses.
-AI characters and multiplayer characters have different animation sets
-No more "gliding" animations that look off, animation realism is a focus
-Captured their own war audios (bullets, tanks, helicopters, etc) at different distances to ensure realism
-Better audio cues for certain actions, more easily able to listen for threats
-Plan on better, more immediate post release content
-More unlocks than BFBC2
-Dice trying to find a good balance between customization of your character and not having "pink rabbit hat(s)"
-4 classes
-Will talk about squads "later"

Looking into a theater mode but can't talk about it
-Will have co-op
-There will be a kill-cam but it can be turned off
-BF3's team is almost twice as big as the team for BFBC2
-They want the pacing of the single player mode to be balanced, with highs and lows. Makes the comparison to a song vs a guitar solo.
-Part of the single player mode takes place in Sulaymaniyah - Iraqi Kurdistan.
-"****" will be used often, so M rates for sure
-There will be an earthquake in a level. The destruction sounds very impressive. 7 story building collapses, looks very well done
-Significant narrative that goes with the SP mode
-More than one setting, you're not in the middle east for the whole game
-PC version is lead version
-Why 64 players for PC only? No complains from the console crowd.
-No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frosbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?
-Commander mode is in

source:

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=203156
Post edited by Francot at 2/8/2011 1:02:52 PM

Don't know how that guy read that there will be a commander mode. Basically the answer was saying how he didn't like the commander in bf2, and he thought the squad attack/defend objectives in bc2 were an improvement (further proving my point that the people that make bf games don't know anything about playing them).

Here's the page of the magazine where he talks about commanders.
http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/images/news3/bf3-gi52-53.jpg




Also, I wouldn't say that demo recording is in. He essentially gives the same answer as he does in regards to mod tools. "maybe later"

He says how recording is such a big challenge on dedicated servers...... Yep. Even with the supposed doubling of the number of staff at DICE, still no one there has figured out how to implement features that have been around for years.
Post edited by shez at 2/8/2011 1:15:55 PM

Originally posted by: shez
Don't know how that guy read that there will be a commander mode. Basically the answer was saying how he didn't like the commander in bf2, and he thought the squad attack/defend objectives in bc2 were an improvement (further proving my point that the people that make bf games don't know anything about playing them).

Here's the page of the magazine where he talks about commanders.
http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/images/news3/bf3-gi52-53.jpg




Also, I wouldn't say that demo recording is in. He essentially gives the same answer as he does in regards to mod tools. "maybe later"

He says how recording is such a big challenge on dedicated servers...... Yep. Even with the supposed doubling of the number of staff at DICE, still no one there has figured out how to implement features that have been around for years.

This sounds to me like they are working on the demo recording

"We have functionality on our end that can capture movies. The hard part of course is our dedication to creating non-cheatable games contradicts the whole idea of doing that because we are running dedicated servers on everthing and that actually makes it harder. We're definately looking into ways of delivering our version of this functionality but I can't give away any details"

Post edited by Francot at 2/8/2011 1:27:23 PM

Yes, they said they're working on it. But his lack of any sort of guarantee makes me skeptical. Remember that they were also working on demo recording in bc2. Then they just gave up and left it unfinished.

So yeah there's a possibility. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Originally posted by: shez
Yes, they said they're working on it. But his lack of any sort of guarantee makes me skeptical. Remember that they were also working on demo recording in bc2. Then they just gave up and left it unfinished.

So yeah there's a possibility. But I'll believe it when I see it.

I agree with you. I'm crossing my fingers. BF2/BF1942 was the game that put DICE on the map. Lets hope they work hard to on this game also. So far I'm happy to see that they have being for some time now and that the PC version is the lead version.

I could care less right now about the mod tools, if they build a solid game, people will buy it and the mod tools will come out latter when the game is dying.

Post edited by Francot at 2/8/2011 1:35:54 PM

I'm just glad that PC is the lead platform. Finally.

Originally posted by: .c.recon
I'm just glad that PC is the lead platform. Finally.

Maybe they are lying, i dont trust in any PC games dev anymore till i test at least a demo.

they said they were making games for pc mainily in the past.. what they say and what they do are two VERY different things.

Originally posted by: .c.recon
I'm just glad that PC is the lead platform. Finally.

Yah ive heard that song and dance before

Originally posted by: Maggost
"No mod tools at release. Maybe none down the line either. Frosbite 2.0 is complex and mods tools would have to be dumbed down, so does Dice really want to put their time to that or would it be better spent elsewhere?"

http://www.gamersmint.com/battlefield-3-gameinformer-scans-are-here-info-blowout/

It seems that Battlefield 3 will work well for public servers, not suited for competitive gaming, by the way...that screenshot looks like a mix of MoH and BC2.

For once can we have a positive attitude going into a battlefield game? I can remember a couple years back when some people were saying "there's never going to be a BF3 blah blah"
Post edited by [Grenade] at 2/8/2011 10:29:25 PM

I would love to see the commander make a return, but judging from that response, it looks like we probably won't be getting it. It will be interesting to see what the upgraded features to the squad will be.

A few things off the top of my head that I'm hoping for:

1. Better armor - Secondary fire auto-equipped, not a perk
2. No squad hopping
3. Better kit balance
4. No revive invuln

Originally posted by: Shades22

1. Better armor - Secondary fire auto-equipped, not a perk

God yes! The armor aspect of BC2 was a fucking abortion compared to the armor aspect of BF2 and 1942. I also hope Noober strikes are taken out. Nothing like pointing, clicking, and having something do all the work for you; PURE SKILL!

I have my full faith that the vehicle aspects of battlefield are restored in BF3. Vehicle warfare is one of the primary things that distinguishes battlefield from all other First Person Shooters.

Originally posted by: [Grenade]
For once can we have a positive attitude going into a battlefield game? I can remember a couple years back when some people were saying "there's never going to be a BF3 blah blah"

I've had a positive attitude going into every bf game so far (minus 2142). I even had it going into bc2 cause it looked like ea/dice were finally turning things around. But nope. So I think I'm justified in being pessimistic this time around.

Originally posted by: shez

Originally posted by: [Grenade]
For once can we have a positive attitude going into a battlefield game? I can remember a couple years back when some people were saying "there's never going to be a BF3 blah blah"

I've had a positive attitude going into every bf game so far (minus 2142). I even had it going into bc2 cause it looked like ea/dice were finally turning things around. But nope. So I think I'm justified in being pessimistic this time around.

Maybe you had a positive attitude; however, generally speaking, the battlefield community are a whiny bunch who are impossible to satisfy. Seriously by about season 3 of CAL in battlefield people were already calling it a 'dead game' and bitching CONSTANTLY about the hit reg. I am not sure why BF2 died so quickly, it should have lasted a lot longer.. There will always be flaws and bugs in a game.

It's one thing to be slightly skeptical, it's another to condemn a game totally before even trying it. (Not saying you are, just sayin)

Post edited by [Grenade] at 2/9/2011 2:24:54 PM

Why should we be optimistic ? Everything DICE has done to BattleField in the last 5 years or so (BF2 patches, 2142, BC2) was to make the game more friendly to casual pubbers and console players.

Small learning curve, low skill ceiling. That's what DICE is all about now.

Originally posted by: iLL| TrashBlind
Why should we be optimistic ? Everything DICE has done to BattleField in the last 5 years or so (BF2 patches, 2142, BC2) was to make the game more friendly to casual pubbers and console players.

Small learning curve, low skill ceiling. That's what DICE is all about now.

Point taken, but dice even said BC2 was NOT a sequel.. Before the game came out they stated that it was essentially meant to be a knock off; an experiment off of the battlefield series.. People seem to have forgotten this, using BC2 as a reason to be skeptical about BF3 is almost silly IMO.

GameInformer article more or less confirmed No Commander, 4 classes and a "Hardcore" mode. The true sequel to BF2 is off to a shaky start.

Originally posted by: iLL| TrashBlind
GameInformer article more or less confirmed No Commander, 4 classes and a "Hardcore" mode. The true sequel to BF2 is off to a shaky start.

No Commander is a bit disappointing.. Hardcore mode I am not too worried about. There are always players (NOOBS) who prefer a more "realistic" game play. BF2 did not have a hardcore mode but it had a "Project Reality" mod which was almost the same thing.

Originally posted by: [Grenade]

Originally posted by: shez

Originally posted by: [Grenade]
For once can we have a positive attitude going into a battlefield game? I can remember a couple years back when some people were saying "there's never going to be a BF3 blah blah"

I've had a positive attitude going into every bf game so far (minus 2142). I even had it going into bc2 cause it looked like ea/dice were finally turning things around. But nope. So I think I'm justified in being pessimistic this time around.

Maybe you had a positive attitude; however, generally speaking, the battlefield community are a whiny bunch who are impossible to satisfy. Seriously by about season 3 of CAL in battlefield people were already calling it a 'dead game' and bitching CONSTANTLY about the hit reg. I am not sure why BF2 died so quickly, it should have lasted a lot longer.. There will always be flaws and bugs in a game.

It's one thing to be slightly skeptical, it's another to condemn a game totally before even trying it. (Not saying you are, just sayin)

BF2Pro killed competition in BF2, even while fixing a lot of the problems with the game. While competitive mods are necessary most of the time to make the game work for competition, it has the added effect of being different from the version of the game Joe Q Pubber bought at Gamestop. That along with the attitude we had as a community of any one new or "on a bad team" led to the casual player not being interested or quickly losing interest in competing.

Most of the old school Battlefield teams are gone and for any new battlefield game to be successful from a competitive standpoint, we are going to need new blood to sign up and compete and for the community not to be huge assholes to them.

Originally posted by: chad`

Originally posted by: [Grenade]

Originally posted by: shez

Originally posted by: [Grenade]
For once can we have a positive attitude going into a battlefield game? I can remember a couple years back when some people were saying "there's never going to be a BF3 blah blah"

I've had a positive attitude going into every bf game so far (minus 2142). I even had it going into bc2 cause it looked like ea/dice were finally turning things around. But nope. So I think I'm justified in being pessimistic this time around.

Maybe you had a positive attitude; however, generally speaking, the battlefield community are a whiny bunch who are impossible to satisfy. Seriously by about season 3 of CAL in battlefield people were already calling it a 'dead game' and bitching CONSTANTLY about the hit reg. I am not sure why BF2 died so quickly, it should have lasted a lot longer.. There will always be flaws and bugs in a game.

It's one thing to be slightly skeptical, it's another to condemn a game totally before even trying it. (Not saying you are, just sayin)

BF2Pro killed competition in BF2, even while fixing a lot of the problems with the game. While competitive mods are necessary most of the time to make the game work for competition, it has the added effect of being different from the version of the game Joe Q Pubber bought at Gamestop. That along with the attitude we had as a community of any one new or "on a bad team" led to the casual player not being interested or quickly losing interest in competing.

Most of the old school Battlefield teams are gone and for any new battlefield game to be successful from a competitive standpoint, we are going to need new blood to sign up and compete and for the community not to be huge assholes to them.

This is true actually. I know when Zulu first started doing competition we were adverse to using Pro. It was probably the same for a lot of other clans.

It also didn't help that you needed more than twice as many players to field a competitive team before 5v5 came along. This lowered the amount of teams that were actually competing.

I don't remember how long 8v8 lasted, but I thought 5v5 had a pretty decent run in BF2.

Originally posted by: Shades22

Originally posted by: chad`

Originally posted by: [Grenade]

Originally posted by: shez

Originally posted by: [Grenade]
For once can we have a positive attitude going into a battlefield game? I can remember a couple years back when some people were saying "there's never going to be a BF3 blah blah"

I've had a positive attitude going into every bf game so far (minus 2142). I even had it going into bc2 cause it looked like ea/dice were finally turning things around. But nope. So I think I'm justified in being pessimistic this time around.

Maybe you had a positive attitude; however, generally speaking, the battlefield community are a whiny bunch who are impossible to satisfy. Seriously by about season 3 of CAL in battlefield people were already calling it a 'dead game' and bitching CONSTANTLY about the hit reg. I am not sure why BF2 died so quickly, it should have lasted a lot longer.. There will always be flaws and bugs in a game.

It's one thing to be slightly skeptical, it's another to condemn a game totally before even trying it. (Not saying you are, just sayin)

BF2Pro killed competition in BF2, even while fixing a lot of the problems with the game. While competitive mods are necessary most of the time to make the game work for competition, it has the added effect of being different from the version of the game Joe Q Pubber bought at Gamestop. That along with the attitude we had as a community of any one new or "on a bad team" led to the casual player not being interested or quickly losing interest in competing.

Most of the old school Battlefield teams are gone and for any new battlefield game to be successful from a competitive standpoint, we are going to need new blood to sign up and compete and for the community not to be huge assholes to them.

This is true actually. I know when Zulu first started doing competition we were adverse to using Pro. It was probably the same for a lot of other clans.

It also didn't help that you needed more than twice as many players to field a competitive team before 5v5 came along. This lowered the amount of teams that were actually competing.

I don't remember how long 8v8 lasted, but I thought 5v5 had a pretty decent run in BF2.

We got 6 seasons of 8v8 in at CAL and half way through 7 before CAL died. 5v5 was always a TWL staple until late in BF2's life at CAL.

Originally posted by: chad`
along with the attitude we had as a community of any one new or "on a bad team" led to the casual player not being interested or quickly losing interest in competing.

this was why we and 2 other clans i know of left CAL. after competing there for several years.